Open main menu

Wiktionary > Discussion rooms > Information desk

You can search in the archives of Information desk:

Welcome to the Information desk of Wiktionary, a place where users can ask questions about words and about Wiktionary, ask for help, or post miscellaneous ideas that don’t fit in any of the other rooms.

To start a new topic, clicking on the “+” tab, or click here: Start a new topic.

Sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~), code which produces your signature, followed by a UTC timestamp.

For past questions, see /Archives.

Information desk archives edit


March 2019

About the pronunciation of Japanese "kumo"Edit

I'm curious about these two Japanese words:

  • (kumo, cloud)
  • 蜘蛛 (kumo, spider)

My questions:

  • Are they pronounced exactly the same?
    • The pronunciation section of both entries already has the same IPA, so it looks like the answer is "yes". I'm just checking.
  • Are these words likely to be confused with each other if the context doesn't help?
    • Suppose someone says a sentence along these lines in Japanese: "Please draw a 'kumo' for me." I'd like to know if it would be likely to sound ambiguous.

Thanks in advance. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

This Reddit thread includes (besides a bunch of unhelpful stuff) evidence that Japanese speakers would just say sora no kumo (and presumably mushi no kumo) to disambiguate if the interlocutor didn't understand by context alone. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
My dictionary (Kenkyusha pocket) also gives the same tonal pattern (a downstep in pitch) for both.  --Lambiam 16:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
In the standard Japanese accent, both of them are pronounced as /kúmò/, but in the Kansai dialect, 雲 /kúmò/ and 蜘蛛 /kùmô/ respectively. Those are one of the rare exceptional minimal pairs not following the rules of correspondence between the dialects in Tokyo and the Kansai region.--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@荒巻モロゾフ: Could you please add the Kansai to these two entries? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I would very much like to add them, but {{ja-pron}} is totally messed up for expressing Japanese dialectal phonological structures. It can't express accent system of Kansai dialect (there are fall and rise accents and no voiceless vowels in Kansai dialect) and can't handle the difference of the vowel and consonant between Japanese dialects (Western Japanese /u/ is not [ɯ] like Tokyo dialect, but [u]). We should change the template.--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

How to give definitions for prefixesEdit

I'm working on uploading a lot of Tocharian B words, many of which are prefixed with e(n)-. The issue is, that particular prefix appears to have two uses, both as an intensifier and a negator, which are largely opposites. I was going to use the || used for definitions, but the usage of the prefix is different from the definition, so I feel it wouldn't fit there. How would I specify the usage of the prefix?

Here's an example of what I'm talking about: anklautkatte. The e(n)- prefix is used as an intensifier here, but I have no way of neatly denoting that as opposed to the negator usage. GabeMoore (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I assume that this is about the template {{affix}}. You could use {{af|txb|e(n)-#Etymology 2|alt1=e(n)-|klautk-}}.  --Lambiam 18:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
You should use the "id" parameter, as in {{af|txb|e(n)-|id1=test}}. DTLHS (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Doing that didn't change anything. What I'm looking for is a way to show the meaning of the prefix right after it is written. For example: Latin cudo (to beat).
(This is kind of difficult to explain via writing, so bear with me.) GabeMoore (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
You can see all the parameters and their documentation at Template:affix. DTLHS (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
The best I can do with the template in its current form is {{af|txb|e(n)-#Etymology 2|alt1=e(n)-|t1=a [[negating]] prefix|klautk-|t2=}}. However, that produces a gloss that looks like (“a negating prefix”); I think we’d like to see (a negating prefix) in italics, instead of between quote signs.  --Lambiam 21:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
You shouldn't use section links inside terms like that. Sections may change as entries change, so they are not reliable. Moreover, they only link to the first section with that name on the page, which may change as well. —Rua (mew) 22:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
To display a non-gloss definition, what I usually do is use a pos parameter. For instance, in ἀρχή (arkhḗ), {{affix|grc|ἄρχω|t1=to begin|-η|id2=zero grade|pos2=verbal noun suffix}}. — Eru·tuon 21:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Modern translationsEdit

One of the quotations for bedlock is from Goethe, who was of course an 18th Century poet, but the date of the text it is taken from (a modern translation) is 2005. But this implies the original quotation is from 2005. Is this intentional? Is this dating issue a common problem with translations and other secondary reference texts that quotations are taken from? -- 12:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The year is fine, but what was not fine in this quotation is giving Goethe as the author, instead of the translator.   I have modified the attribution in the quotation.  --Lambiam 22:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Period (full stop) inside IPA stringEdit

So I was looking at the entries for demon and daemon and came to believe they were (probably) pronounced the same. The problem is that the IPA string in the two entries differ in that there seems to be a period in one and not the other. Demon has IPA(key): /ˈdiː.mən/ and the other has IPA(key): /ˈdiːmən/. Is one of these in error? If so, which? If both are okay, why do they differ, etc.? Thanks. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It's a syllable break, and not always marked. See Wiktionary:International Phonetic Alphabet or w:International Phonetic Alphabet. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Designing Wiktionary Task for StudentsEdit


I am teaching Lexicography to junior university students this semester. What are ways I can incorporate Wiktionary in the syllabus? I am thinking of getting the students on board by designing a project task in which the students add words/translations to Wiktionary. The students native language is Arabic and they are majoring in translation between Arabic and English. So far, the students have good knowledge of the types of dictionaries, the macro- and micro-structures, and the best practices in writing definitions. I think this could potentially be a real asset to Wiktionary and to the students. Your opinions and ideas are highly appreciated.--Reem Al-Kashif (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Off the top of my head, given the topic your students are majoring in, I think the most valuable contributions your students can make is correcting or adding Arabic terms at the English Wiktionary, and likewise for English terms at the Arabic Wiktionary. I don’t know anything about the situation at the Arabic Wiktionary, so the following applies mainly to the English Wiktionary. I assume all student contributions will be supervised and checked – at Wikipedia they have had some bad experiences with student projects that in the end cost the regular editors more pain, effort and time than it was worth.
For starters, the students should be well aware of (1) our criteria for inclusion, (2) our formatting conventions for entries (for beginners it helps to look at analogous existing entries and follow the format found there, but this should never be done blindly), and (3) our conventions that are specific to Arabic. They should study these and discuss what they do not immediately find clear until they are reasonably comfortable with these rules. If done right, this will save them a lot of wasted effort and us a lot of tears.
I assume that the students know, or are savvy enough to check if they are not sure, when a term or expression is specifically Egyptian Arabic. We welcome Egyptian Arabic entries, but they should be marked with the language code arz instead of the code ar for general Arabic.
Here are two lists of known tasks specific for Arabic:
  1. Requests for verification in Arabic entries (only a few requests).
  2. Requested entries (quite a few; giving some consideration to which terms are the most important ones may be helpful).
You can try to enlist the assistance of some of the editors who are native Arabic speakers – but I cannot speak for them; several of the editors on that list are not currently active or may have only very limited time available.
I hope that others will add their ideas and comments. Best of luck.  --Lambiam 21:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
@Lambiam Did you mean "Wiktionary" rather than "Wikipedia" in that first paragraph? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
D’oh! Yes, of course. Corrected. Thanks.  --Lambiam 20:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Well if they are majoring in translation, Category:Requests for translations into Arabic and Category:Requests for review of Arabic translations and English translation tables in general would be an appropriate puzzle for them, I guess. Otherwise people are only occasionally eager to add many technical terms. On the other hand they can just create well-defined entries with well-found usage examples or quotes from occasional literature they read. Regard an entry like German stellen. It is a super-basic word but one has to define well and give proper usages examples to get over all the nuances, which also means one needs to have a proper capability of abstraction to group senses; the cherries on top are quotes from all kinds of texts.
No one in the category “editors who are native speakers of Arabic” has been active in Arabic the last two years. Aspiring editors just have to see to use correct formatting and make nothing unreasonable. There are some other editors that know how it should look like and will look onto occurring edits here and there so no misfits are maintained. @Reem Al-Kashif Fay Freak (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Looking at Category:Arabic terms with quotations could be interesting: what makes a good quotation? Category:Arabic usage examples with the translation missing could also be relevant. —Suzukaze-c 09:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Bullets in etymologyEdit

Several entries, like abdominothoracic, have bullets before the etymology, but many don’t. Several entries of words with multiple possible etymologies have bullets for each possible etymology, but many don’t. What exactly is the consensus for such formatting? Tamınɢsari (談話) 09:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

If there is just a single etymology, as for abdominothoracic, putting a bullet in front serves no purpose. If there are several possible etymologies, I’d rather see a treatment in running sentences, like e.g. for badge and kludge, which makes it easier to express judgements regarding plausibility (if warranted), like seen at shanty. So then also no bullets are needed.  --Lambiam 17:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I think the bullets can be visually useful where there are multiple unrelated ety theories. Equinox 01:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Even then I prefer an unbulleted intro to the bulleted list, even if it just says:
Unknown. There are several, unrelated theories:
 --Lambiam 09:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

adding columns to tablesEdit,_tables,_video,_and_sounds

This does not explain how one can add a blank column to a table. I don't have time to add hundreds of "||" to each line.



-- 16:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there a way to easily list new words?Edit

I can see how to list recent edits and so on, but what I'd really like to do is just find (for example) English words or phrases added to Wiktionary in the last year. Even better might be some way to know that the word is actually a new word rather than an old word that has taken a while to get into Wiktionary but I expect that is impossible (I guess there are other places on the web to find such lists?). Basically I'd like to keep abreast of new words (perhaps also new meanings to old words, so long as they aren't only found in some small group's jargon/slang). Any thoughts how to do something like this? Thanks, Maitchy (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Maitchy: Special:NewPages. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
It sounds like that's definitely not what Maitchy is looking for. Category:Hot words is probably a better bet. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, solved - Hot words was exactly what I was after. Thank you heaps! Maitchy (talk) 03:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Note that new coinages don't have to go into "hot words". We usually do that if the word doesn't meet our usual attestation standards yet (see WT:CFI) but we are confident it will do so later. Equinox 19:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

You can get new English lemmas with the following code:

category             = English lemmas
count                = 50
order                = descending
addfirstcategorydate = true

DTLHS (talk) 03:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

brazen copyright infringementEdit

The entry foist has been an exact copy of since its creation 13 years ago. Since this easily detectable copyright infringement wasn't noticed despite about 100 edits by at least 30 different editors, including edits by well-known editors and many edits by bots, it seems we need an automated detection process. --Espoo (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Espoo: "easily detectable" is very different than "easily verifiable" (see NP), if you have suggestions for how to reasonably detect copyright infringement without the assistance of the publishers of all of the various dictionaries which may be infringed, please elaborate. This does seem like one which ought to have been caught, but after the first few modifications it becomes increasingly difficult to tell which edits were good-faith and which were not. - TheDaveRoss 15:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

ads blocked by AdBlockEdit


The above page has been blocked by adblock - This was discussed on the #wikimedia-tech IRC Channel (see Adblock have also been made aware via

Pinging @Zppix who was invloved in the discussion

Thanks, RhinosF1 (Public) (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

uBlock Origin seems to block it too by setting display: none; to whatever is a top display element, which hides all of the page. Chrome calls it an "injected stylesheet" in the Developer Console. It seems to be caused by EasyList rules, and based on those, it should also happen to advert and ad, and indeed the former is blocked, while bizarrely enough the latter is not. — surjection?〉 14:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Confirming the above is same for me. RhinosF1 (Public) (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@Surjection - filed. RhinosF1 (Public) (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  Whitelisted RhinosF1 (Public) (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Whitelisted by whom? Adblock? I still see an all-white page, also after clearing the cache. The source is fine. Neither can I edit the page; shows an equally blank page.  --Lambiam 18:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I've asked for action to be taken to prevent a simmilar issue in future affecting any wiki at RhinosF1 (Public) (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Why would anyone using AdBlock (Plus)/uOrigin/Privacy Badger/etc. run them on WMF sites? I have them all whitelisted on all my ad blockers. I guess that's a bit rhetorical: another way to put it is that I recommend whitelisting. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

People who just pass every so often might not think to. RhinosF1 (Public) (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to start a incident report at some point. RhinosF1 (Public) (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Incident report @ RhinosF1 (Public) (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
FWIW this is a known issue and has come up often enough that I documented it in the WT:FAQ/Help:FAQ a while ago; I just expanded the Q a bit to also cover "ads". The issue seems to be something for the adblockers to fix, not us. - -sche (discuss) 01:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@-sche, Part of the response to this will prevent future incidents involving and blockers. Wiktionary is already whitelisted so should face no further issues. RhinosF1 (Public) (talk) 06:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@-RhinosF1 (Public): FWIW (regarding this being due to a "rule matching the pages on the 4th September 2018"), this issue or a similar one has been reported since at least 2014/2015, so there may be more to fix. - -sche (discuss) 07:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@-sche, All Wiktionary domains are whitelisted against all rules on easylist not just that specific one. RhinosF1 (Public) (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Reference TooltipsEdit

I find the reference tooltips option on Wikipedia much more convenient than clicking back and forth to the citations list, on articles with many inline citations. After a bit of clicking back and forth in a Wiktionary article, I went to adjust my Wiktionary preferences to enable the option, and haven't found it. Is there not some way I may use reference tooltips on Wiktionary? Phillip Alan Gulley (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Phillip Alan Gulley:, The files are missing on Wiktionary. It could be added but we'd need a user with the permission to edit the MediaWiki area. I'll try to raise it on IRC as well. RhinosF1 (Public) (talk) 07:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


How do I format the pronunciation of ndołkah for the IPA?Ndołkah (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

You would use {{IPA}}. I removed the pronunciation you gave, because it didn't seem to be IPA, but rather some kind of other transcription. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
it was ipa, ipa for western apacheNdołkah (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
No, it wasn't. If you don't know IPA, you shouldn't add it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
For the benefit of those who haven't looked at the edit history, the alleged IPA is "ndołkʰh". Apparently Western Apache has prenasalized consonants, and "nd" is one way to represent that. I'm skeptical, though, about "h" directly following "kʰ" without an intervening vowel. There are some languages, such as Persian, that have "h" after vowels, but I've never seen a language with syllabic "h", and it seems even stranger to have it following an aspirated consonant, since "h" is itself pure aspiration. Still, I'm not an expert on phonology, so it's possible I'm missing something. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
In the spelling of Western Apache lemmas we use ⟨ł⟩ (e.g. łóg), ⟨ɫ⟩ (e.g. ɫigai), and ⟨ɬ⟩ (e.g. ikaɬ), next to a plain ⟨l⟩, as in diʼil. Are these all meant to be different letters? The Omniglot site recognizes only ⟨l⟩ and ⟨ł⟩, the latter representing [ɬ].  --Lambiam 23:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I think ɫ is a mistake for ł: note this move. The difference is fairly subtle, and it's easy to miss if you don't know to look for it. The pronunciation is quite different, though: the first one is a velarized voiced lateral approximant, as in the Polish dark l, and the other one is a voiceless lateral fricative, as in Welsh ll. Now that you mention it, the "IPA" discussed above does use the orthographic ł rather than the phonetic ɬ, which is a definite problem. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I've moved those two to the correct orthography. @Julia, did you create any other Western Apache entries with nonstandard orthographies? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
We still have aɬdóʼ, aɬkʼidą́ʼ, bijatɬane, ditɬid, diɫhiɫ, Dziɫtʼaadn, dzitɫ ndeʼyú, hishtɫish, iɬdíʼgee, ɫibaa, nadzeeɫ, naʼitɬʼíígí, tsinaʼeeɫí, tsʼaaɫ, tudiɫhiɫi, yiʼaaɫ, and yídiɫig.  --Lambiam 09:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I've moved all of those. @Julia, would you mind finding the remaining Western Apache entries you created with "someone who..." definitions? It seems that they should all be verbs, and you were confused by the lemma form for Western Apache, which is 3rd pers. sing. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ndołkah, Metaknowledge, Chuck Entz, Lambiam: Anything that shows up in this search should be looked over or deleted. I made them when I was fairly new to Wiktionary. They are not quality entries and I don't know anything about Western Apache; I just copied a wordlist. Anyways, the correct orthography can be found here: fr:Apache occidental, which is from this study if you want a direct source. I'd rather an admin make moves because it doesn't leave a redirect, but I can provide a list if needed. For the corrections, ' and ɬ should be substituted with ʼ and ł respectively. I also found a bunch of vowels that have diacritics other than the ogonek. I don't know if this is wrong or just an alternate orthography. Julia 17:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, looking through the word lists in several languages, I see a good number that are in sort of a quasi-phonetic shorthand, so I wouldn't use those a guide for spelling. As for diacritics, the acute accent is used to mark high tone in Western Apache. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I based it on what i found here[1]Ndołkah (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
    Since ł is not one of the IPA symbols, that guide is incorrect.  --Lambiam 21:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • maybe they didn't gave a way of inputting it on their device?Ndołkah (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
    Entering &#620; in the HTML source would have done the trick.  --Lambiam 07:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Construction of adjective without nounEdit

In English, when you have a noun phrase that includes a adjective, but you want to leave out the noun, you have to replace it with one, e.g. the green one or a big one. In other languages, you are often able to leave out the noun altogether and don't need something else in its place. The adjective then takes on the role of a noun to some degree, but there is still the implication that a noun belongs there, you just didn't specify it (to avoid repeating yourself or whatever). What is such a construction called? It's not Nominalization, which is a derivational process that converts other words into nouns. In the case I am describing, the adjectives remain adjectives, the noun they modify has just gone missing. —Rua (mew) 17:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

metonymy? DTLHS (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
ellipsis? pronominalization? (I think Talk:le_mien has dealt a bit with this issue; see Wikitiki's posts) ChignonПучок 17:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
When a German says “der Alte” – which was a nickname for Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and also for a police detective in a popular German Krimi series – I don’t think they feel a noun was omitted. The common term for turning an adjective like alt into the noun Alter is nominalization; I do not see what makes you (Rua) think this is not covered by the term.  --Lambiam 20:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
It is clearly not nominalization, because the noun is still implied, just elided, as I said before. For more detail, I'm asking what is the proper term for the West Frisian adjective form described here. I want to include it in an inflection table, but that requires having a term to put in a table header cell. —Rua (mew) 20:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence that a noun is implied, or is just your feeling it is? Is a noun implied in the sentence “the rich are getting richer by the day”? I can invent some noun, like “bastards”, to follow the word “rich”, but I don’t think there is a gap left by an omitted noun to put it in.  --Lambiam 21:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Based on your Taalportaal link, maybe just label the cell "with nominal ellipsis", "with elided noun" or "with noun elided"?
FWIW, I think you can also do this in English without "one", like: John Alessio, Social Problems and Inequality (2013, →ISBN): "Citizens [...] might entertain the dilemma of which of the two pills they want: the red or the blue." (I expect "...a red or a blue." is also possible, but searching is difficult.)
I poked through google books:"adjective" "implied noun" and didn't spot anything particularly helpful. This book refers to "stand-alone adjectives" in Hebrew where a noun can be inferred or implied.
I also checked if it might be called "pseudo-nominalization" but apparently not: this book uses that word for "the red" (presumably as in "the red of her car is different from his" or something), and this book uses it for things like "das Ich" and "un autre moi".
- -sche (discuss) 21:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


Is used colloquially in England for hand but doesn't appear in Wiktionary.

We have it. It's spelled mitt. Equinox 08:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Automated references?Edit

I'm trying to figure out how to reference a new dictionary. I see that major languages like Arabic have a code set up that references a common dictionary or glossary. I have virtually everything that's ever been published on Gulf Arabic, including a dictionary with about 8000 entries. Is there a way that I can set up a reference page for Gulf Arabic?

MarkDShockley (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

@MarkDShockley: You can create your own templates. Look at Category:Arabic reference templates how such templates are coded, and you add your template under a convenient name, Template:R:afb:blabla. It is easy. (If there is something complicated in the templates, it is mostly because the template also links to online scans by page name.) Fay Freak (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Western Apache shashEdit

Is Western Apache shash really pronounced as [tʃatʃ]? All sources I can find (which however appear to copy each other) suggest that the pair ⟨sh⟩ is pronounced like in English, that is, like /ʃ/, while /tʃ/ is the realization of ⟨ch⟩.  --Lambiam 13:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Doubtful; I've removed it. @Ndołkah, I've told you a few times now, you really have to stop adding IPA to entries that you're just copying from an unreliable source when you don't actually know any IPA. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I know IPA just fine sh is ʃ and ch is tʃ I made a mistake, I am moving slowly. I just wanted to include the Ndee biyátiʼ alphabet in here. I know how to say it in person just not in perfect IPA because the chart I used was wrong that's all.Ndołkah (talk) 07:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ndołkah – I believe it is better to use the “broad” (phonemic) notation /.../ than the “narrow” (phonetic) notation [...]. The latter should be reserved for pronunciation nuances differentiating for instance Tonto from White Mountain.  --Lambiam 22:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
what's this? Please explain!Ndołkah (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Study the article International Phonetic Alphabet on Wikipedia, in particular the section Usage. See also the article Phonetic transcription on Wikipedia, in particular the section Narrow versus broad transcription.  --Lambiam 07:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)